🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have demanded accountability. At one point, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of sex trafficking four years ago for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, financial firms that had done business with Epstein, although not accepting fault, agreed to pay hundreds of millions in settlements to survivors. Donald Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these records, and his government has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have lagged, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s activities amid the stalemate – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Aim at Leading Financial Institutions

The legal complaints, filed by an anonymous plaintiff against a major U.S. bank and the BNY Mellon, claim that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are led by Sigrid S McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and lawyer Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“Epstein committed these crimes by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both individuals and institutions, including BNY,” one lawsuit claims. “Shockingly, the institution had a abundance of knowledge regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but opted for financial gain over protecting the victims.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to support their global trafficking enterprise under the guise of legal commercial dealings”. The suit also said the bank failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Longtime attorneys who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also noted possible outcomes which could offer comfort to plaintiffs or release of previously hidden details.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said proof has to show that an bank’s conduct resulted in harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the survivors, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” Rahmani said. Certain allegations might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “if not for the bank’s actions, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would translate to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani explained.

An attorney would also have to go beyond a basic causation test. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in leading to the victim’s suffering.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? I don’t know.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, suits like this could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have damaging implications for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the Epstein-related cases.”

Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm his firm and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“But even then, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would probably not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While Epstein’s Florida conviction was public, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“It is illegal for a bank to in any way be complicit in the illegal actions of a customer, but these aspects are distinct, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Victims

That said, key elements of the litigation could help Epstein survivors.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the continuing Epstein story,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a lawsuit, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often mandates release of information that was not previously public.”

Edwards said in a statement that the suits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will be harmed from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the essential role each plays, either in supplying the necessary infrastructure for the criminal enterprise or identifying the financial component of these offenses and stopping it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than Congress, because we understand the facts and history of the matter and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to safeguard the victims, who have already suffered tremendously.

“Our handling of these issues without any political agenda and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other shameful political maneuvering you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

McCawley said in a declaration: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his illegal trafficking operation for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

When requested for a statement on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

The bank’s response similarly remarked: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this matter.”